If
you've been wondering where the insanity masquerading as our federal
government 'food safety' and animal health protection regulations
and laws are coming from, you can now say with certainty that they
descend from the organizations within and tied to our international
alliances.

Before
you throw a conditioned response out that this is all just 'conspiracy
theory' propagated by right wing nut cases, you had best be able to
understand the impact on trade of the SPS and TBT agreements made
through the WTO (World Trade Organization) and be able to relate the
position of the United States in the OIE and Codex.

Should
you be unfamiliar with the NAIS (National Animal Identification System)
the shortest explanation that can be given of the proposed system
is that anyone who has any type of livestock, say two chickens, will
have to register their property, complete with global positioning
satellite coordinates, microchip their chickens with an NAIS ISO11785
compliant chip, and report within 24 hours if said chickens ever leave
the property, hatch out chicks (another chip required), go to the
vet or die. No kidding. To learn more about that, you must read the
"Draft Strategic Plan" and the "Draft Standards" which are available
only on line. The USDA will not send you copies of these documents,
but they will send you a nice glossy packet with a 'soft' description
of the program.

This
is not an easy subject to relate to people who, by design, have very
limited knowledge of our government's involvement in these organizations,
and even less understanding about the mechanisms employed in the organizations.
It's extremely complicated, and at the very least veiled to public
scrutiny, but if you are willing to dig and read hundreds of pages
of mind numbing rules and agreements, it is there and it is proven.

An
introduction to acronyms is necessary. The players involved in the
proposed National Animal Identification System being pushed by the
USDA, and to be managed by APHIS (Animal Plant Health Inspection Service)
are varied. First there is the WTO (World Trade Organization) which
reached an agreement amongst participating countries several years
ago in Uruguay called the SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) and TBT
(Technical Barriers to Trade) agreements.

In
laymen's terms what the SPS agreement says is that each member country
can make regulations that must be met by other member countries in
order to trade in agricultural goods with each other. These regulations
must be in the interest of protecting the country making the regulations
from disease, pests, or perceived health dangers. Countries making
regulations cannot impose more strict regulations on importer nations
than they do on their own nation.

Then
there was the TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) agreement made at
the same time in Uruguay. What that says is that developed countries
must help less developed countries to advance technologically to be
able to participate in trade with other member countries. Developed
countries cannot require more than a country is able to achieve and
the developed countries need to help the less developed countries
to meet their own criteria through funding and other assistance.

Then
there is the OIE (Office Internacional Epizooities) or World Animal
Health Organization, which although it is independent of the UN in
origin works very closely with both the FAO (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the UN) and Codex Alimentarius which is a child of
the UN and FAO. Codex can be best understood as being the global FDA
and OIE as the global USDA. The Untied States of America has membership
in both the OIE and the UN and therefore Codex.

The
OIE has authority over all member nations veterinary services. Most
of the OIE rules are rather innocuous, however they have become increasingly
involved in issues directly relating to trade since the advent of
the WTO in 1994. OIE has also been increasingly involved with Codex
and are working in concert on nearly everything at this time. Of particular
importance to the subject of the NAIS (National Animal Identification
System) is the issue of 'traceability/product tracing' and 'good farming
practices'.

The
OIE has a publication available on line called the "Terrestrial Animal
Health Standards Commission" which is absolutely loaded with information
regarding "traceability/product tracing" and Codex standards on the
subject.

On
page 41 of the TAHSC (Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission)
it states that there is a critical relationship between animal identification
and the traceability of animal products and that animal identification
and traceability are "key tools for animal health, including zoonoses
(diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans), and food
safety", as well as "incidents, vaccination programmes, herd/flock
management, zoning/compartmentalization, surveillance, early response
and notification systems, animal movement controls, and health measures
to facilitate trade."

Also
worth noting from page 41 is the following paragraph:

"The
Competent Authority in partnership with relevant government agencies
and the private sector should establish a legal framework for the
implementation and enforcement of animal identification and animal
traceability in the country. In order to facilitate compatibility
and consistency, relevant international standards and obligations
should be taken into account. This legal framework should include
elements such as the objectives, scope, organizational agreements
including the choice of technologies used for identification and registration,
obligation of the parties, confidentiality, accessibility issues and
the efficient exchange of information."

In
Appendix XXXIV of the Terrestrial Animal Health Standards document
it states that VS (veterinary services) are the "Competent Authority"
for animal identification and traceability in all member countries.
It also does such fun things as role the words "animal identification
system" into the word "animal identification" so that the smaller
term may legally be referred to meaning an entire national or international
system.

The
European Union has made no real secret of the fact that their animal
identification requirements are in line with both Codex and the OIE.
It is my understanding that RFID will also be a mandatory requirement
in the EU in January of 2008. There are a few catch phrases that have
become fairly common stemming from the mandates of Codex, such as
"farm to fork" traceability and "from stable to table", that leave
no doubt of the identity of the progenitors of the US National Animal
Identification System. The USDA and the OIE and Codex as well as the
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN) state that this
is consumer driven.

While
there may be a desire on the part of consumers to know the conditions
under which their food was raised, the conditions which spark that
desire are not conditions caused by small or medium sized agricultural
endeavors, or even large privately owned operations. The corporate
ag companies with their disregard for life and use of chemicals, antibiotics
and hormones to improve their bottom line are responsible for the
lack of confidence felt by those who cannot raise their own food.
Yet the net effect of this program will be much higher cost for food
and a loss of choice for the consumer as smaller farmers will be driven
out of business by the costs of compliance and loss of production
time because of the increase in paperwork and reporting needs as well
as the many millions who will not be able to comply with the system
because of deeply held religious convictions or aversions to the loss
of freedom necessitated by the monitoring and surveillance implicit
in this program.

As
a matter of fact, corporate ag will be one of the few beneficiaries
of this system because they will be allowed to tag their animals as
groups or lots under only one tag per group/lot whereas those who
practice more natural forms of animal rearing will need to tag each
and every animal born at additional cost with additional reporting
time. Reports may also be required on what is being fed to the stock
as 'assurance' schemes are repeatedly referred to in both OIE and
Codex guidelines.

On
page 37 of theTAHSC (Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission
document referred to above) there is a clear and indisputable tie
to the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 which passed into law and is enforced
by the FDA in the United States. The Bioterrorism Act of 2002 is the
Act which is requiring that hay producers in the US register their
premises and report who drove the truck, which field it was from,
who worked on the harvesting of the hay and to whom the hay was sold.
A quote from the TAHSC document showing the clear link follows:

"…the
Task Force on Animal Feeding (May 2004) agreed to add a footnote to
the title of Section 4.3 "Traceability/Product Tracing and Record
keeping of Feed and Feed Ingredients" to indicate the definition developed
by the Codex committee on General Principles applied to the Code (Terrestrial
Animal Health Code, of the OIE) as appropriate…..the prompt trace-back
of feed and feed ingredients should be to the immediate previous source
and trace forward should be to the next subsequent recipients."

Throughout
these documents are references to harmonization of identification
and traceability methods and standards. In one document by Perry,
harmonization is defined as, "the establishment, recognition and application
of common sanitary and phyto sanitary measures by different Members."
The United States is a "Member" so the directions following harmonization
apply to the US. For food safety, (feed included) we must refer to
Codex, for animal health the authority goes to the OIE. In the World
Trade Organization documents regarding the SPS (sanitary and phytosanitary
agreement) and the TBT (technical barriers to trade agreement) it
is recommended that any disputes be mediated by the OIE or Codex.

It
is abundantly clear that through these international entanglements
our officials are both legislating and regulating our God given and
Constitutionally guaranteed rights away. In the name of international
trade and globalization these officials have agreed to implement a
plan that is destructive to our nation's existence, as well as our
freedom to feed ourselves without intense surveillance.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

As
a nation we must ask ourselves, is our freedom for sale in the global
market? Is selling beef to Japan important enough to throw our Constitution
and our children's future into the trash can? Can we not support ourselves
agriculturally with the excellent controls we already have in place?
Is your freedom worth more than all the bananas you may eat? To quote
Patrick Henry, "Is life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased
at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know
not what course others may take, but as for me,_____________________.
I hope you can fill in the blank.

Doreen Hannes is a homesteading mom, and a truly
grass roots activist for small scale and traditional farming rights. She
has thoroughly researched the origins and impacts of "Free Trade" agreements
and National Animal Identification System in particular and has been a
major force in the anti-NAIS movement both nationally and in Missouri
for over a year.

Her mission is to expose the procedures and methods
being employed to destroy the God given rights of this once great republic.
Doreen is a frequent guest on talk radio programs and has written extensively
on the NAIS.